Whether or not you see a reason for the embarrassment isn't relevant. What matters is whether or not Trump would be embarrassed. If so, he's open to blackmail. That's the issue surrounding the alleged piss table. — Michael

Good, how do you know he would be embarrassed by it?

Good, how do you know he would be embarrassed by it? — Agustino

I haven't said he would be. I said he might be, which would make the existence of such a tape a national security issue, given that it could be used as blackmail.

So then you should first find out if he would be embarrassed by it.

Then go ahead and ask him if you like.

Again, I have no idea what you're trying to say here.

Well, it is you who wants to know so much, so you should ask him! Remember, you said you wouldn't be surprised if the Pee Pee tape is true.

For Trump himself I think there's evidence of obstruction of justice (e.g. firing Comey "because of the Russia thing" and trying to fire Mueller), and possibly also money laundering (e.g. the $100 million sale of a $40 million property). His refusal to admit that the Russians interfered, coupled with his refusal to enact the sanctions that were near-unanimously passed by Congress suggests a very strange loyalty to Russia, which I suspect is due to blackmail (e.g. the piss tape, and possibly also evidence of money laundering). — Michael

Firing Comey seems really dumb, but then again there were tons of leaks coming out during his tenure which seem to have now largely stopped. Coincidence?

Maybe Trump's professed "nationalist" agenda is interpreted by the Russians as being more aligned with their national (and regional) interests, at least much more so than previous administrations--or a Hillary Clinton administration--which pretty openly sought U.S. global political, economic and military hegemony. I just don't see how loyalty to Russia is implied in trying to ease tensions and find some common ground upon which to build a better relationship. I'm not saying that's what Trump is trying to do, but that's what I would try to do if I were president, and I don't consider myself to be a Russian agent.

I'm under no illusion about what type of leader Putin is or trying to dismiss his government's flaws, but whether a more cooperative or more adversarial relationship serves the interests of average U.S. citizens is something to be considered. Why are pundits like the old neocons--with their bogus WMD claims fresh in our minds--so hawkish about engaging in renewed hostilities with Russia? Who benefits from this? Is it OK for us to foment anti-Russian sentiment in places like the Ukraine? Etc.

Also, other nations (e.g. Israel) lobby U.S. politicians all the time and they do so largely by emphasizing mutual geopolitical interests, but those who take money or other benefits from them aren't accused of being foreign agents. And while I don't like the idea of foreign governments meddling in our domestic affairs or us meddling in theirs, it does seem pretty commonplace. Now if you're an American and you're actively (and knowingly) working against our interests (but again, whose interests are represented in this "our"?) then that's another matter.

I just can't see what's truly unique here. But again I'll acknowledge not keeping up with it as much as you guys and looking at it through an extremely cynical lens, knowing how the U.S. government has repeatedly engaged in efforts to prop up friendly but unpopular regimes around the world for a very long time now, and has done so through the use of nefarious tactics. Tu quoque fallacy? Perhaps, but the hypocrisy of many of those who appeal to the "sanctity of democracy" is pretty amusing given our nation's record. Not as bad as Russia's, admittedly, but we've done many things that run contrary to our professed principles. Much of which predates Trump.

Here's the thing with Trump. With all other people, we assume they are innocent until proven guilty. With Trump, the Crooked Media always assumes Trump is guilty before proven to be guilty...

And you and Fox News assume that Obama et al. are guilty before proven to be guilty.

Such is politics.

And you and Fox News assume that Obama et al. are guilty before proven to be guilty. — Michael

No, I just said I wouldn't be surprised if that was the case.

No, I just said I wouldn't be surprised if that was the case. — Agustino

Sure, that's what you said. ;)

Actually no, I just claim that there was a conspiracy between the FBI and Obama against Trump and his administration, and that's undeniable now. — Agustino

A conspiracy? The then President of the United States was faced with the problem of having information that a candidate for the same office was having, had had, arguably inappropriate and suspicious contacts with a hostile power. I believe the news has reported that Obama made it clear he wanted the matter handled "by the book." Is that your "conspiracy"?

Yeah, "by the book" ;)

Rod Rosenstein to announce indictments of Russians in U.S. election meddling - live updates

On Friday, a D.C. federal grand jury returned an indictment against 13 Russian nationals and three Russian entities that accuses them of violating U.S. criminal laws to meddle in U.S. elections and political processes. According to a spokesman for the special counsel's office, the indictment charges all of the defendants with conspiracy to defraud the U.S., as well as "three defendants with conspiracy to commit wire fraud and bank fraud, and five defendants with aggravated identity theft."

From in or around 2014 to the present, Defendants knowingly and intentionally conspired with each other (and with persons known and unknown to the Grand Jury) to defraud the United States by impairing, obstructing, and defeating the lawful functions of the government through fraud and deceit for the purpose of interfering with the U.S. political and electoral processes, including the presidential election of 2016

So we know that there are more people involved than just these 13 indicted Russians. I wonder if they're not included because they're American citizens?

A third guilty plea (after Papadopulos and Flynn). Richard Pinedo. Something to do with selling bank accounts created using stolen IDs, presumably to the indicted Russians?

https://www.justice.gov/file/1035547/download

I listened to what Rubinstein said and he was clear that the Russians had set up American based network of political activists who thought they were working for American concerns, not Russians.

But as you point out there is more to come.

Mueller obtained another guilty plea -- this one from a guy named Richard Pinedo, who operates a company that helps skirt security requirements on online payment systems. Doesn't seem to be connected to Trump campaign. www.justice.gov/file/10…

I beat you to it.

>:o

Russia indictments present new reality for Trump crying ‘hoax’

Since his election, Trump has often privately expressed concern that the charges of Russian meddling undermine the legitimacy of his presidency. He has told associates that if he accepts the premise of Russian meddling, it would call into question the idea that he won the election on his own merits.

In news conferences, on Twitter and at campaign rallies, he has called the Russia investigation "fake news" and has repeatedly predicted that Mueller's investigation will end without finding much.

In fact, the indictments Friday were cited by Rod J. Rosenstein, the deputy attorney general, as proof of the great lengths to which the Russians went to infiltrate the US political system.

Trump doesn’t seem to have understood that the story has never been about him directly co-operating with Putin to throw the election. What’s really coming out, is that Putin hated Clinton, and because of that, and for various other reasons, he favoured a Trump Presidency, and worked towards that end - whether Trump was aware or not. It’s a lot more complicated that Trump understands it to be - and as has become obvious in the first year of the Presidency, Trump is not good at grasping anything complicated.

Mueller levels new claim of bank fraud against Manafort

And Gates appears to be working on a plea deal. Things ain't looking good for Manafort.

Trump is not good at grasping anything complicated. — Wayfarer

Oh, and you are? Is that why Trump built a billion-dollar real estate empire, and you didn't? :-}

Wayfarer is a billionaire. Trust me. He doesn't need to show tax records to prove it. Trust me. Wayfarer also has great words.

No, but I'm underlining how ridiculous it is to claim that someone who has built a billion dollar empire and won the Presidency of the United States "is not good at grasping anything complicated" - absolute nonsense.

As if just about any dumb Joe could do either of those things.

As if just about any dumb Joe could do either of those things. — Agustino

They can. Trump did it.

https://www.vox.com/world/2017/11/20/16680190/hr-mcmaster-trump-idiot-kindergartner

https://www.vox.com/world/2017/11/20/16680190/hr-mcmaster-trump-idiot-kindergartner — Michael

Is that why Trump is McMaster's boss, because he's less intelligent than him?

What will Mueller discover? It turns out it's exactly what I anticipated. I love how those who peddled hysteric charges about Trump and his campaign are now downplaying, backpedaling, and subtly changing their narratives.

Is that why Trump is McMaster's boss, because he's less intelligent than him? — Agustino

Because Trump was elected President and McMaster wasn't. It has nothing to do with intelligence.

It turns out it's exactly what I anticipated. I love how those who peddled hysteric charges about Trump and his campaign are now downplaying, backpedaling, and subtly changing their narratives. — Thorongil

Who's doing that?